Jailed for pushing a cyclist under a car
Discussion
Evanivitch said:
So whilst I'm not questioning the manslaughter conviction as clearly a death occurred as a result of the pedestrians actions, I am confused how this aligns with the hierarchy of road users (Highway Code H1) which places pedestrians at the bottom. The pedestrian was elderly and physically disabled, and felt vulnerable due to the nature in which the bicycle approached (whatever that was we don't know).
Pedestrians are at the top of the hierarchy (not the bottom) but the hierarchy of road users doesn't exempt pedestrians from owing a duty of care to others.Highway Code said:
Rule H1
It is important that ALL road users are aware of The Highway Code, are considerate to other road users and understand their responsibility for the safety of others.
Everyone suffers when road collisions occur, whether they are physically injured or not. But those in charge of vehicles that can cause the greatest harm in the event of a collision bear the greatest responsibility to take care and reduce the danger they pose to others. This principle applies most strongly to drivers of large goods and passenger vehicles, vans/minibuses, cars/taxis and motorcycles.
Cyclists, horse riders and drivers of horse drawn vehicles likewise have a responsibility to reduce danger to pedestrians.
None of this detracts from the responsibility of ALL road users, including pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders, to have regard for their own and other road users’ safety.
It is important that ALL road users are aware of The Highway Code, are considerate to other road users and understand their responsibility for the safety of others.
Everyone suffers when road collisions occur, whether they are physically injured or not. But those in charge of vehicles that can cause the greatest harm in the event of a collision bear the greatest responsibility to take care and reduce the danger they pose to others. This principle applies most strongly to drivers of large goods and passenger vehicles, vans/minibuses, cars/taxis and motorcycles.
Cyclists, horse riders and drivers of horse drawn vehicles likewise have a responsibility to reduce danger to pedestrians.
None of this detracts from the responsibility of ALL road users, including pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders, to have regard for their own and other road users’ safety.
LimmerickLad said:
I can see where you are coming from but for me personally I don't think this is as clear cut as the many on here as well as the Judge / Jury seem to think - appeal coming up?
It might not be but they have had the benefit of hearing and seeing all the evidence.What I don't know is legally were the options manslaughter or walk free?
monthou said:
The hierarchy of road users doesn't mean a pedestrian can push a cyclist into the road.
Yes this seems to need explaining to some posters - just because the highway code creates a hierarchy of road users doesn't mean that those higher up the hierarchy have carte blanche to kill or maim those lower down if they feel they are transgressing in some way. A few days ago I was walking along the pavement when some t
t in a van coming towards me mounted it without slowing down, missing me by not a lot. Much as I would have liked to, I'm not allowed to throw a brick through his windscreen to re-arrange his face, even though he shouldn't have been there.Edited by Roger Irrelevant on Thursday 2nd March 17:56
bhstewie said:
hstewie said:LimmerickLad said:
I can see where you are coming from but for me personally I don't think this is as clear cut as the many on here as well as the Judge / Jury seem to think - appeal coming up?
It might not be but they have had the benefit of hearing and seeing all the evidence.What I don't know is legally were the options manslaughter or walk free?
ralphrj said:
Evanivitch said:
So whilst I'm not questioning the manslaughter conviction as clearly a death occurred as a result of the pedestrians actions, I am confused how this aligns with the hierarchy of road users (Highway Code H1) which places pedestrians at the bottom. The pedestrian was elderly and physically disabled, and felt vulnerable due to the nature in which the bicycle approached (whatever that was we don't know).
Pedestrians are at the top of the hierarchy (not the bottom) but the hierarchy of road users doesn't exempt pedestrians from owing a duty of care to others.Highway Code said:
Rule H1
It is important that ALL road users are aware of The Highway Code, are considerate to other road users and understand their responsibility for the safety of others.
Everyone suffers when road collisions occur, whether they are physically injured or not. But those in charge of vehicles that can cause the greatest harm in the event of a collision bear the greatest responsibility to take care and reduce the danger they pose to others. This principle applies most strongly to drivers of large goods and passenger vehicles, vans/minibuses, cars/taxis and motorcycles.
Cyclists, horse riders and drivers of horse drawn vehicles likewise have a responsibility to reduce danger to pedestrians.
None of this detracts from the responsibility of ALL road users, including pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders, to have regard for their own and other road users’ safety.
It is important that ALL road users are aware of The Highway Code, are considerate to other road users and understand their responsibility for the safety of others.
Everyone suffers when road collisions occur, whether they are physically injured or not. But those in charge of vehicles that can cause the greatest harm in the event of a collision bear the greatest responsibility to take care and reduce the danger they pose to others. This principle applies most strongly to drivers of large goods and passenger vehicles, vans/minibuses, cars/taxis and motorcycles.
Cyclists, horse riders and drivers of horse drawn vehicles likewise have a responsibility to reduce danger to pedestrians.
None of this detracts from the responsibility of ALL road users, including pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders, to have regard for their own and other road users’ safety.
And the pedestrians actions were based on feelings of danger due to the presence of the cyclist on a pavement.
And H1 state cyclists have a responsibility towards more vulnerable users, especially those with disabilities, I again ask how the sentence (not the verdict) aligns with the highway code.
jm doc said:
TheLurker said:
jm doc said:
There is a video, there is no push
Yes, there is. Might be half off camera, but it's pretty obvious.The cyclist should never have been on the pavement, there are no signs or markings anywhere in the actual video and the reporter's piece to camera that indicate it was a shared pavement and it clearly wasn't otherwise it would have been categorically stated as such by the police and the council, neither of whom could state this. It was a complete witch hunt to attribute blame on a pedestrian feeling threatened by a cyclist riding illegally and not in full control of her bike.
Whether the cyclist should, or should not, have been on the pavement doesn't mitigate a willful act which resulted in a death. The pedestrian could easily have moved out of the way, or simply not have pushed her.
P.S. I'm not advocating that cyclists should accept no responsibility when in the wrong, but if she shouldn't have been on the pavement, two wrongs don't make a right. As has been agreed on by a court.
Evanivitch said:
But wasn't the basis for the prosecution or the conviction. Both of which were based on the pedestrians behaviour which caused the cyclist to take avoiding action and subsequently fall.
So whilst I'm not questioning the manslaughter conviction as clearly a death occurred as a result of the pedestrians actions, I am confused how this aligns with the hierarchy of road users (Highway Code H1) which places pedestrians at the bottom. The pedestrian was elderly and physically disabled, and felt vulnerable due to the nature in which the bicycle approached (whatever that was we don't know).
I’m not sure why you (and others) have become obsessed with this ‘hierarchy of road users’ thing? All it means is that there are DIFFERENT presumptions of responsibility (sensibly) based on vehicle type. It doesn’t mean that there is NO requirement for (for example) a pedestrian to behave reasonably and sensibly in interactions with any other vehicle (as this case has proved).So whilst I'm not questioning the manslaughter conviction as clearly a death occurred as a result of the pedestrians actions, I am confused how this aligns with the hierarchy of road users (Highway Code H1) which places pedestrians at the bottom. The pedestrian was elderly and physically disabled, and felt vulnerable due to the nature in which the bicycle approached (whatever that was we don't know).
Evanivitch said:
But the conviction wasn't based on the pedestrian physically pushing the cyclist.
I didn't say it was nor does the Highway Code say that you must not physically push other road users. It says all road users are to be considerate and understand their responsibility for the safety of others.Evanivitch said:
And the pedestrians actions were based on feelings of danger due to the presence of the cyclist on a pavement.
The defendant claimed that in their defence. In her initial interview she told Police that the path was narrow, that the cyclist was in the middle of the path, the cyclist was travelling fast and she "may" have raised her hand to protect herself. She admitted contact with the cyclist. The CCTV showed that she had several seconds and plenty of room to have avoided the cyclist if she had been threatened but instead moved aggressively towards the cyclist whilst swearing at them, the cyclist wasn't travelling fast and at the point of the collision the path was not narrow but 2.4m wide.Basically, the prosecution were able to show the jury that her claim to be defending herself was a lie.
Evanivitch said:
And H1 state cyclists have a responsibility towards more vulnerable users, especially those with disabilities, I again ask how the sentence (not the verdict) aligns with the highway code.
All true but having a responsibility does not exempt the pedestrian from having to be considerate to other road users and having a responsibility for their safety in return.In rule H1, underneath the part that establishes a hierarchy it states:
Highway Code rule H1 said:
None of this detracts from the responsibility of ALL road users, including pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders, to have regard for their own and other road users’ safety.
sociopath said:
Idiot with agenda posts load of complete and utter hoofwangling bks that contradicts properly constituted jury and judge findings following court case
Discuss
Pretty much this.ks that contradicts properly constituted jury and judge findings following court caseDiscuss
The OP clearly has an agenda or is trolling. Thankfully the court does not agree with him.
The thread on this same subject in NP&E is more balanced IMO.
Plenty of people have studied the video in that thread to conclude that given the movements of her body and elbow, which can be seen if you watch a high quality version of the video, that she did indeed push the cyclist.
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: Does it actually need physical contact?
If I'm standing on a train platform and someone lunges at me to scare me but I'm startled and fall under a train is that just a tragic accident?
I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have fallen under a train if they hadn't done it.
Good analogy.If I'm standing on a train platform and someone lunges at me to scare me but I'm startled and fall under a train is that just a tragic accident?
I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have fallen under a train if they hadn't done it.
It's the woman's actions that are the critical point. She caused the chap to alter course, leaving him no safe route.
jm doc said:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshi...
Partially sighted and with cerebral palsy, pedestrian sent to jail for being on a pavement at the same time as an incompetent and dangerous cyclist.
Discuss
Partially sighted and with cerebral palsy, pedestrian sent to jail for being on a pavement at the same time as an incompetent and dangerous cyclist.
Discuss
That's not what she was jailed for. She was jailed for killing.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff